Harry Pariser, who lives in the building on the left, next to Burger King, says that the owners of the restaurant got special treatment at the building department, and he did not get the proper notice about the restaurant moving in on 9th ave in the inner sunset area of San Francisco.
Liz Mangelsdorf/ The Chronicle less

Harry Pariser, who lives in the building on the left, next to Burger King, says that the owners of the restaurant got special treatment at the building department, and he did not get the proper notice about the ... more

Photo: LIZ MANGELSDORF

Image 2 of 3

Building Permit Process. Chronicle graphic by John Blanchard

Building Permit Process. Chronicle graphic by John Blanchard

Photo: Todd Trumbull

Image 3 of 3

To probe where many probes have gone before / Outsourcing the investigation gives department-watchers hope that this time, it's the real thing

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection -- investigated in the past by the FBI and slammed last year by a civil grand jury -- is about to undergo yet another high-profile examination, and its detractors hope that this time it results in reform.

Mayor-elect Gavin Newsom's plan to appoint a special monitor to look into the department follows a decade in which the agency was probed several times by the FBI and its day-to-day operations were criticized in both a city controller's audit and a civil grand jury report.

Despite all this sound and fury, critics of the agency -- from average citizens who have dealt with it to bureaucrats who have investigated it and city officials who worked within it -- say it continues to give special preference to well-connected developers, something the investigations have never substantiated.

"I hope this isn't just a ruse for business as usual," said Pariser, who along with neighbors tried and failed to find construction permits in department records for the Burger King. It's important, he said, that Newsom "really follows through with funding for this investigation and for enforcement against code violators."

Department critics say two men, Residential Builders Association leader Joe O'Donoghue and permit expediter Walter Wong, have far and away the most clout of anyone dealing with the agency, enabling them to win speedy approval for projects while the average citizen sometimes waits months. In addition, critics say the department has failed to modernize its record keeping and permit tracking, making it difficult both to do business and to catch anyone bending the rules.

"Both Joe and Walter have an interest in preserving antiquated ways so that the way things get done is by juice -- either juice when you hire Walter or from political juice with Joe," said Michael Hamman, past president of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry, who has often tangled with O'Donoghue, other members of the Residential Builders Association and the department.

O'Donoghue did not return phone calls from The Chronicle for comment, and Wong declined to be interviewed.

Two years ago, an audit by City Controller Ed Harrington found that poor record-keeping by the department might have cost the Municipal Railway $3.5 million in uncollected development fees. Harrington said Tuesday that there was now "a real chance to go in and clean this place up. Technology could really be used to streamline the permit process and instill accountability" - - making it easier to detect if any project gets special treatment.

Harrington's audit included a survey in which almost half of department staffers responding said preferential treatment had been given to some permit expediters -- private parties hired to speed projects through the building and planning departments.

A civil grand jury reached findings similar to the controller's in a report last June. The grand jury found that favoritism in the department was "deeply ingrained," and "many employees appear to be unaware that preferential treatment of certain customers is improper and prohibited."

While both the grand jury's and controller's reports received attention in the media, some department employees say privately that they have seen little change.

One reason for many employees' skepticism is that the FBI looked at the agency several times, with few results.

The only major case growing out of a federal investigation involved former information systems manager Marcus Armstrong, who pleaded guilty in July to federal charges that he took $500,000 from companies that received business from his department.

FBI agents have looked at other department employees several times without any charges being filed. Some employees say the probes were hampered by a rotation of FBI agents on cases.

"The department never seemed to be a high priority for the FBI, and then 9/11 came along, and the interest went to zero," said one former department employee who dealt with two federal agents over the years.

LaRue Quy, spokeswoman for the FBI in San Francisco, says that corruption cases are important to federal investigators, but that the local office has a problem with agents transferring because of the high cost of living here.

"It kills us when agents transfer out," Quy said. "Every time that happens, an investigation is disrupted."

When Newsom's special monitor begins investigating, the agency under the microscope will be one very much of the making of O'Donoghue, the self-made millionaire whose Residential Builders Association members have constructed many of the loft projects that dot city neighborhoods.

O'Donoghue, who like expediter Wong supported Matt Gonzalez over Newsom in the mayor's race, was co-author of a 1994 ballot measure that created the department in its current form. O'Donoghue billed the measure as good government, while his foes said the reorganization increased his ability to manipulate the agency.

Amy Lee, deputy director of the department, says that in 2002-03 the department handled more than 57,000 permit approvals on projects worth $1.5 billion. She says 92 percent of those permits were granted within a day.

Lee says her agency "welcomes any additional oversight." She says that though the department requested it, neither the controller nor the grand jury ever provided specific examples of undue influence.

In the last year, she adds, the department has established a code of professional conduct and is drafting new ethics guidelines.

Charles Marsteller, former San Francisco coordinator for the reform group Common Cause, applauded Newsom's move, saying it underscores the seriousness of problems plaguing the department.

"It's to his credit to be taking on this can of worms," Marsteller said. "I have hopes to see real reform, finally."

Building permit process

1 Building owner or owner's representative must apply online or in person at 1660 Mission St.

2 Building permits are reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection and otherSan Francisco departments as necessary to make sure they meet code regulations.

If applicant requests help, the department has a division called "One-Stop" that assigns a city-employed coordinator to help move the project through the process.

3 If the permit is approved, you have 90 days to begin work. If it is denied, youhave 15 days to appeal.

4 The applicant is reQuyred to notify the district inspector when ready to start work.

Typical home improvements reQuyring permits

Building permits are not just for new buildings. Remodeling projects often reQuyre permits as well.

A bathroom remodel can reQuyre up to three permit reviews: an electrical review, plumbing review and building review.